Informal ECOFIN: 7/8 April 2006

Gordon Brown: The Informal Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) took place in Vienna on 7 and 8 April 2006. I represented the United Kingdom.
	The informal council discussed globalisation, with the participation of chief executive officers of three international companies. This focussed on how to preserve and further strengthen Europe's attractiveness as a business location and for foreign investment, on completing the single market, and on how to ensure a more equal distribution of benefits among citizens.
	The informal council also discussed the working methods of ECOFIN; the present economic situation and prospects for the global economy; the preparation of the spring meetings of the Bretton Woods institutions; and taxation.

Publication of Report into BBC Funding

Beverley Hughes: I am today announcing the Government's decisions on how the details of practitioners providing sensitive services should be recorded on the information sharing index.
	Section 12 of the Children Act 2004 provides for the establishment of an information sharing index. The Government announced, during the passage of the Children Bill, that there would be a public consultation on three issues relating to the operation of the index
	recording practitioner details for potentially sensitive services on the index;
	access by authorised users to practitioner details once recorded; and
	recording the fact of a concern on the index.
	The consultation ran from 27 October 2004 to 19 January 2005. There were some strongly expressed concerns in response to the consultation that recording details of sensitive services, such as mental and sexual health and drug abuse, may deter children and young people from accessing those services.
	The Government's response to the consultation was issued in a written ministerial statement on 30 June 2005. In the light of the views expressed, the response set out decisions to implement a differentiated approach to recording details where for a limited number of services, restricted to targeted and specialist health services, consent would be required to record practitioner details on the index. The response committed my Department to further work, with the Department of Health, to define those services that would, for the purposes of the information sharing index, be considered sensitive.
	The Government have decided that services related to sexual health, mental health and substance abuse should be the broad categories defined as sensitive. The following, specific service areas are those where practitioner details will only be included with consent:
	Sexual Health—information, advice and treatment for pregnancy, abortion, contraception; sexually transmitted infections including services related to HIV/AIDS or Hepatitis B or C; rape crisis or sexual violence; sexual abuse and services related to Gay/Lesbian or Trans-Gender issues;
	Mental Health—Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services tiers two, three and four which includes referrals to and assessment and treatment by, community based and in-patient teams dealing with, for example, sexual abuse and eating disorders; and
	Substance Abuse—information, advice and treatment for drug, alcohol or volatile substance abuse (glue, aerosols and butane gas).
	Currently, there are regulations covering disclosure of information about sexually transmitted infections which would not permit practitioners providing services in this area to include their details on the index even with explicit consent. The Department of Health plans to consult on regulatory change, well before the index is implemented in 2008, which would then, subject to the will of Parliament, permit, with explicit consent, the inclusion of these details on the index.
	The Government's response to the consultation stated that there would be a facility to over-ride lack of consent to record practitioner details in sensitive services on the index, but to restrict it to carefully specified circumstances, in line with existing law, such as where there are genuine child protection concerns.
	Where consent is given to record practitioner details for the sensitive service on the index, the child's index record will indicate to other practitioners that an unspecified, sensitive service is working with the child. On-line access to the sensitive service practitioner's name and contact details will be restricted to index management teams. A practitioner who wanted to contact the specialist service about the child would make a case to the index management team who would, as appropriate, broker contact with the sensitive services practitioner.
	The Government announced on 8 December 2005 that the information sharing index will be implemented across all 150 local authorities in England by the end of 2008. We will seek Parliament's agreement in autumn 2006 to the main Regulations to govern the operation of the index. We will consult publicly on draft regulations in the summer of 2006.

Patricia Hewitt: Section 4(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 provides that an NHS trust may make an application to Monitor (whose statutory name is the Independent Regulator of NHS foundation trusts) for authorisation to become an NHS foundation trust, if the application is supported by the Secretary of State.
	I am today announcing that I support Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS trust in its bid to become an NHS foundation trust, as part of wave 2A of NHS foundation trust applications. The trust can now apply to Monitor for authorisation as an NHS foundation trust, and set up new governance arrangements including recruiting members and holding elections to the board of governors. Section 6 of the 2003 Act sets out the matters to be taken into account by Monitor and the terms under which authorisation of NHS foundation trust status can be given.
	I understand from the chairman of Monitor that Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust, if successful, would be authorised on 1 August 2006.

Charles Clarke: The Justice and Home Affairs Council will be held on 27–28 April 2006 in Luxembourg. I shall be attending the meeting with my noble and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, and my noble Friend Baroness Ashton will also be attending. I thought it would be useful if I were to outline the main issues I expect to be discussed at this Council meeting. While I would normally have made this statement earlier, the presidency tabled a large amount of the Council business for discussion at preparatory meetings this week and I wanted to be able to give the House the most accurate picture possible of what I expect to be discussed.
	In the mixed committee formation prior to the Council itself, there will be a discussion of the French initiative to raise the charges on the processing of Schengen visa applications. The UK does not opt into this measure and so will not participate in this discussion. The presidency will seek views from member states on certain issues concerning the legal base for the second generation Schengen Information System, as well as updating on the state of play.
	There is likely to be a political discussion of the proposal for a Council decision on the improvement of police co-operation, especially at the internal borders. The presidency has put forward two options: first to accept the text as currently drafted; or second, for the Council to agree to suspend negotiations on this measure. The Government feel that the outstanding issues could be resolved with more time, but that it will not be able to accept the text as currently drafted without the option of dual criminality applying for cross-border surveillance. We believe that it is reasonable to seek to apply dual criminality in this area, where not to do so would mean that police officers from one member state could conceivably have greater powers than domestic officers on the territory of another member state.
	There will also be an update on the state of play in discussions on the proposal for a data protection framework decision to regulate the handling of personal data within the fields of police and judicial co-operation. The aim of the proposal is to enhance the sharing of intelligence in the fight against crime and terrorism by providing common standards for the handling of data. The Government fully support the broad objectives of the proposal, but are working to ensure that the ultimate framework is not overly-bureaucratic or so onerous that it actually has the effect of reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies. In particular, we continue to question whether the proposal can or should apply to all domestic processing.
	In the main Council format, there will be presentations and discussions on the issue of human trafficking. This was one of my main priorities for the UK presidency and we made great progress agreeing the action plan. The presidency, the Commission and Europol will give an update on the implementation of the action plan. The Council also intends to adopt Council conclusions on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings on the basis of the EU action plan and including trafficking in connection with major international events, with specific reference to the 2006 football World cup. There will also be a presentation on the implementation of the EU external relations strategy, which was again agreed under the UK presidency.
	The presidency will be seeking to make progress, following attempts in 2004, on agreement of a list of safe countries of origin with regard to asylum claimants. The UK has already seen the benefits of working closely with countries which are generally safe, as this can act to deter unfounded asylum claims. The Government will support the presidency in its efforts to agree an EU list, but it will of course be important to ensure that the right countries are on the list.
	I understand that the presidency has invited Peter Sutherland, the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative, to make a short presentation to the Council on the UN high-level dialogue on international migration and development. I am pleased that there will be this opportunity for discussion as the Government believe that migration can be a positive force for development.
	Rome II, law applicable to non-contractual obligations, is on the agenda for political agreement on all articles. The UK will support this but certain concerns remain and political agreement in the Council is unlikely to be the end of the negotiations. The effect on the law of defamation is not yet finally resolved although it was clear from discussion at the JHA Council in February that excluding defamation from the scope of Rome II was the only realistic way of securing political agreement on this issue. We regard this as acceptable and can support it in the Council. The UK has concerns about the scope of Rome II and it is likely that we shall reiterate these concerns during the Council. The UK will also continue to urge further improvements on product liability and unfair competition.
	The document on judicial co-operation in civil matters will be presented in order to raise awareness amongst justice ministers. The Committee on "Civil Law Matters" is tasked with ensuring uniformity and coherence in European Community legislation in the area of civil law particularly those covered by articles 65 and 293 of the EC treaty. This is just an item for the Council to take note of. The UK supports the Civil Law Committee Opinion.
	The Council is being invited to open formally the new N-Lex system and to take note of the presentation on the new EUR-Lex system. The UK fully supports these two initiatives in increasing access to justice across the EU and in allowing European citizens to have direct access to the law of every member state in electronic form.
	It is clear from negotiations up to this point that the framework decision on procedural rights as it is currently drafted will not be agreed by the Council. The presidency has proposed the creation of an ad hoc working party to explore alternative approaches. The UK will support the presidency's proposal for this working party when it is discussed at the council.
	The presidency will seek to have a discussion on some of the outstanding issues on the European Evidence Warrant (EEW). The UK is broadly content with the framework decision as it is currently drafted, having made a great deal of progress on it during the UK presidency, and we believe it will be an important part of the mutual recognition agenda. However, concern has been expressed about the clarity of the definitions of those offences to which the principle of dual criminality would not apply. The UK feels that the same principle should apply in this measure as in the European arrest warrant and that a more strict definition of these offences is not necessary. There are also likely to be discussions of whether data retained under the Directive on the Retention of Telecommunications Data should be included in the scope of the EEW. All member states agree that it is too soon to apply mutual recognition principles to this area of judicial co-operation, and are therefore content to leave this to the second stage EEW (which is due in 2007).
	There will also be a discussion of one of the remaining issues on the framework decision on the enforcement of sentences. The presidency has suggested a compromise that would mean that double criminality would not be required for the majority of cases for the purposes of prisoner transfers, but would allow those member states that wish to continue to apply the principle to do so. The Government believe this provides an effective compromise as a basis for further discussions.
	We expect the Council to reach a general approach on the agreement between the EU and Norway and Iceland on a surrender procedure, subject to final consideration of the form to be used for requesting extradition. The UK supports enhanced extradition arrangements with Norway and Iceland along the lines of the EAW model and therefore supports the presidency's efforts to bring this negotiation to a close.
	We expect the presidency to seek to reach a general approach on the Council framework decision on the fight against organised crime.
	Finally, there is likely to be a presentation by the presidency regarding a high level political dialogue between the Council, Commission and European Parliament on the fight against terrorism, which was agreed as part of the EU counter-terrorism strategy in December.

Barry Gardiner: I attended the informal meeting of the Competitiveness Council on Saturday 22 April, hosted by the Austrian presidency in Graz. My ministerial colleague, Lord Sainsbury attended the Council on Friday 21 April.
	At the morning session on 21 April, Austrian Minister for Education, Science and Culture, Elisabeth Gehrer, chaired a discussion on the breakdown for the EU's research budget for the 7th Framework Programme 2007–13 (FP7).
	Commissioner Potocnik presented the principles behind the Commission's revised breakdown for the budget for 2007–13 following agreement on the overall EU budget. The budget for FP7 would see a 60 per cent. increase over current levels to an average of €7.8 billion per annum as opposed to €4.8 billion per annum under the 6th Framework Programme, but this was still a reduction on the Commission's original proposal in 2005. Ministers were unanimous in stating that the Commission's revised breakdown represented a good basis for negotiations, but all put forward suggestions for changes.
	The presidency hoped that this discussion would allow the Competitiveness Council to agree a general approach on FP7 on 29–30 May 2006. This would give them the basis with which to negotiate with the European Parliament, which expects to complete its first reading of FP7 in June.
	The afternoon session on 21 April was on "The Opportunities of Globalisation". There were presentations from Vice-President Verheugen on "Competitiveness Through Innovation"; Commissioner Kroes on "Less and Better State Aid for Growth and Jobs"; French Minister Francois Loos on "Competitiveness Clusters"; and Helmut List, CEO AVL List, on "Centres of Competence".
	Ministers showed general support for clusters as useful initiatives. Some member states thought EU cooperation on clusters was important, and a number have drawn up a national map of clusters. There was general support for Commissioner Kroes's plans to introduce some additional flexibility to EU rules on state aid for innovation. Member states were also supportive of improving access to risk capital for SMEs.
	At the morning session on 22 April I participated in a discussion based on the Commission's revised proposal on the services directive. Austrian Minister for Labour and Economics, Martin Bartenstein, chaired the discussion, inviting Ministers to agree that the revised Commission proposal, based largely on the European Parliament's first reading text, should be swiftly agreed as an overall "package" with the aim of reaching political agreement at the Competitiveness Council on 29–30 May. Member states expressed support for moving forward quickly on the basis of the Commission's revised proposal but noted that important issues remained to be discussed.